Steve Bennett wrote:
On 7/20/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
A point I have made more than once. But this seems to single Armstrong out. The section is gradually getting bigger and bigger, with special pleading and guilt by association creeping back in. I do not see how it can be considered neutral to give the strong impression that he is a doper who has not been caught, which is what one or two editors are determinedly trying to do, when the legal position is that he is clean, despite being quite possibly the most tested athlete in history.
I suppose it depends how you word it. If we could cite some respectable opinion pieces that said he was probably a doper, you could throw in some weasly "he remains under a cloud of suspicion" type sentences.
Steve
I think the original point of this example (and tell me if I am wrong) is not the specific case but cases like it. Where you risk being POV with perfectly verifiable stuff. Violating NPOV can be done by selection of what to include as easy as it can with how you include it. This is the claim that is frequently made against the media, that their bias is not in untrue reporting but in what they chose to report.
Dalf